Alan Dransfield's Blog

http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/11711292.Retired_judge_to_lead_review_into_how_Wirral_Council_treated_highways_whistleblowers/

You couldn’t make it up. He has not in the past supported whistleblowers – quite the contrary.

To: Richard Bailey

Cc: Bradshaw, Ben

Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 6:56 AM

Subject: Fwd: Message from you Line Manager

Dear Mr Bailey

Please see the following message from your Line Manager. His message contradicts the ICO mission statement!

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Begin forwarded message:

From: Mark Thorogood
Date: 21 August 2014 23:03:38 BST
To: Alan M dransfield
Subject: Message deleted

Your message has been deleted without being read by me.

Mark Thorogood

____________________________________________________________________

The ICO’s mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/alan_m_dransfield_2#incoming-538136

Dear Mr Bailey

Can you please tell me why you are not
updating your readers by adding to your referral statements that the content of
the guidance document is now subject to appellate action? You
should link a copy of the Lord Justice Briggs finding or URL: anything
less is deliberately misleading. In particular, I refer to your vexatious
guidelines published in May 2013. Why are these guideline not date stamped
either?

ICO should immediately withdraw access to the guidance until a new decision is
reached to comply with Lord Justice Briggs; otherwise, it could be construed
that the Wikeley decision has precedent validity.

I would also argue that in the event the
Court of Appeal overturns the Wikeley vexatious decision in GIA /3037/2011 your
guidance will become null and void and approximately 300 ICO decisions will
need revoking.

I would also like
to know why the ICO refer to their vexatious guideline as new. They are not
new; they are over 12 months old now. I would argue that document is
at best a tool to assist the passage of fraud and at worst an attempt to cover
up serious crimes and pervert the course of justice.

I am sure you are
aware that any obstruction of the FOAI 2000 and in particular Section 77 is a
prisonable offence.

For your
information action and files.

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

http://www.panopticonblog.com/2014/06/10/section-14-in-the-court-of-appeal/

“Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water. Just when you had got your head round the decisions of Judge Wikeley in Information Commissioner v Devon CC & Dransfield 2012] UKUT 440 (AAC); [2013] 1 Info LR 360 and Craven v Information Commissioner & DECC [2012] UKUT 442 (AAC); [2013] 1 Info LR 335, and the Information Commissioner has issued spangly new guidance on section 14, and the FTT has been merrily applying the new tests to a host of appeals. Just when all that had become de rigeur and everyone was settling back down…

The Court of Appeal, in the form of Briggs LJ at an oral renewal hearing, has granted Mr Dransfield and Ms Craven permission to appeal against the judgments of Judge Wikeley on the issues of the proper interpretation of section 14(1) FOIA and regulation 12(4)(b) EIR (respectively), and the application to their requests for information. Briggs LJ also granted both appellants the necessary extension of time for their appeals. He refused their applications to admit fresh evidence.

No appeal date has been set – the Order granting permission was only sent on 9 June. But the various members of 11KBW involved below (Tom Cross for the ICO, Rachel Kamm for Devon CC, James Cornwell for DECC) will enable Panopticon to ensure that it continues to cause readers to gaze in horror at their screens with the latest updates. Our work here is only just beginning…

Christopher Knight”

Email sent – 07 June 2014 06:53

Attn Miss Gemma Garvey, ICO

Please provide me with copies of the following documents ref FS 50532725
dated 5th June 2014:-

1. Copies of all internal emails on this case.

2. Copy of all your telephone notes on this case.

You have reached your final decision notice without asking me one single
question and you didn’t have the courtesy to sign your own letter.

Please treat this as a formal FOI request.

Alan M Dransfield

Email sent 07 June 2014 06:35

Attn Mrs Gemma Garvey

Dear Miss Garvey

I acknowledge and thank you for your decision notice FS50532725 dated 5th
June 2014.

Please review this decision as I do not accept your findings.

It would also appear you have treated this matter as a normal FOIA request
which has been signed by Graham Smith the Deputy Commissioner.

I was under the impression you were treating this as a formal complaint
against the conduct of the ICO Officials.

A very cute ploy may I say.

In the first instance, please provide me with an electronic copy of your
decision notice FS50532735.

I make this request because your website is 14 days in arrears of you
decision dates. Another cute ploy to frustrate any appellants?

I am also very concerned your Mr Graham Smith is still signing FOIA
decisions as Graham Smith when you have two Graham Smiths and both are Deputy
Commissioners.

It is SOP in such matters for a full signature or at the very least an
initial. Another cute ploy at disinformation?

I consider Mr Smith’s decision to be part of a wider conspiracy to circumvent
the FOIA 2000. Please forward this email to your line manager, Mrs Clements

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Re: Mrs Pam Clements.

ICO Complaints Manager

Dear Sirs

I am somewhat disappointed my complaints and allegations of
wrongdoing has been handed over to Mrs Pam Clements, as she was the original
decision maker on one of the ICO decisions, which has used the Dransfield Case
GIA /3037/2011 and in particular, I refer to FS50520770 dated 17/3/14.

In essence, it is nearly impossible to find someone within
the ICO who is independent of my GIA case.

I also remind you of your Mission Statement:

The ICO’s mission
is to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by
public bodies and data privacy for individuals.

It is
fairly apparent to me that you fail this Mission Statement on a daily basis and
I say that with the greatest of confidence in the manner you hand down vexatious
decisions on whim, which are based on GIA/3037/2011. Please do not lose sight
of the fact is was the ICO and not the PA who appealed the FTT non/vexatious
decision related to the GIA/3037/2011 to the Upper Tribunal. Hence, your Mission Statement is at best a
sham and at worst might appear to be a tool to assist the passage of fraud. I
suggest the latter and the proof of that pudding lies in GIA/3037/2011 and 200+
VEXATIOUS decisions since Jan 2011 which are solely reliant upon the Dransfield
Case…..

As you are
now aware, I have lodged a formal complaint of fraud and theft of public funds
by the ICO to the Cheshire Police Authority.

With thanks

Yours
sincerely

Alan M
Dransfield